EX OFFICINA... Studia in honorem Dénes Gabler Győr 2009 Ex officina... Studia in honorem Dénes Gabler Herausgegeben von/Szerkesztette: Bíró Szilvia Mitarbeiter/Munkatársak: Bartha Sándor, Csapláros Andrea, Lakatos Janka, Molnár Attila, Redő Ferenc, Serlegi Gábor, Zsidi Paula Dieser Band wurde unterstützt von/ A kötet megjelenését támogatta: Győr-Moson-Sopron Megyei Múzeumok Igazgatósága Magyar Tudományos Akadémia Régészeti Intézete Rómer Flóris Alapítvány © Mursella Régészeti Egyesület © Autoren/Szerzők Győr 2009 INHALT REDŐ FERENC Köszöntő Gabler Dénes 70. születésnapjára / Gratulation zum 70. Geburtstag von Dénes Gabler ........................ 9 Bibliographie von Dénes Gabler ........................................................................................................................................... 17 LÁSZLÓ BARTOSIEWICZ A Comparison between Roman Period and Langobard Dogs from Western Hungary ............................................... 29 DÁVID BARTUS Beinschnitzereien und Vorbilder: die Problematik einer Luna-Darstellung ................................................................... 43 SZILVIA BÍRÓ Neue Angaben zum Vicus von Arrabona ............................................................................................................................ 49 KATALIN BORUZS – GÉZA SZABÓ Neue Votivtafeln aus Blei aus dem Komitat Tolna ............................................................................................................. 63 TIBOR BUDAI BALOGH Pannonische Grubenhäuser Abriss der römerzeitlichen Geschichte der eingetieften Wohnhäuser ............................................................................. 77 CSIRKE ORSOLYA Rómától Rómáig Császárkori vidéki települések és a középkori falusi templomok kapcsolata a Balaton-felvidéken ........................... 111 R. FACSÁDY ANNAMÁRIA Töredékes Venus szobor Aquincumból ............................................................................................................................. 131 BENCE FEHÉR – ÁDÁM SZABÓ Ariagna in Pannonia ............................................................................................................................................................... 137 OLIVÉR GÁBOR Oinochoe Jugs from the 5th Century BC found in Szajk (Baranya County) ..................................................................... 145 ÁGNES GĂZDAC ALFÖLDY – CRISTIAN GĂZDAC Coins in Funerary Contexts. The Case of Brigetio .......................................................................................................... 161 STEFAN GROH Neue Forschungen an der Bernsteinstraße in Nordwestpannonien – Die römischen Militärlager und der Vicus von Strebersdorf und Frankenau/Frakanava (Mittelburgenland, Österreich) ............................................................................................................................................. 175 ESZTER H. HARSÁNYI Die Imitationen der Trierer schwarz engobierten Keramik in Pannonien ........................................................................ 189 HAVAS ZOLTÁN Atilia Firma téglaműhelyének termékei Pannoniában ......................................................................................................... 205 KRISZTINA HUDÁK The Chronology of the Paintings in the Saint Peter and Paul Burial Chamber of Sopianae ........................................... 225 ANITA KIRCHHOF Coffered Vault-decoration from Baláca Represented in Perspective ............................................................................... 239 KOVÁCS PÉTER A sopianaei születésű Maximinus, a „rettenetes pannoniai” .............................................................................................. 255 ORSOLYA LÁNG “Unpleasant to Live in, yet it Makes the City Rich”: Functions of Strip-buildings in the Aquincum Civil Town in the Light of New Discoveries ......................................... 271 ANDRÁS MÁRTON en collaboration avec ESTELLE GAUTHIER Les ossuaires en Pannonie ....................................................................................................................................................... 287 RÉKA MLADONICZKI – OTTÓ SOSZTARITS Die Strecke der Bernsteinstraße in Savaria ............................................................................................................................ 325 ZSOLT MRÁV L. Cornelius Felix Plotianus, Statthalter von Commodus in Pannonia Inferior und die Baugeschichte des Auxiliarkastells Intercisa (Dunaújváros, Ungarn) .................................................................. 357 NAGY ALEXANDRA – BESZÉDES JÓZSEF Kora császárkori edény bennszülött fazekas nevével Lágymányosról (Budapest XI. kerület) ........................................ 389 LEVENTE NAGY Neuentdeckte römerzeitliche Hügelgräber in Transdanubien ........................................................................................... 403 KATALIN OTTOMÁNYI Eingeglättete Gefässe aus der letzten Periode der Siedlung von Budaörs ......................................................................... 411 JUDIT PÁSZTÓKAI-SZEŐKE Cut Rising from her Navel A Possible Allusion to a Protracted Delivery and Fortunate Maternal and Neonatal Survival ....................................... 443 BRIGITTA PÉTERVÁRY-SZANYI Evidence for Roman and post-Roman Trade in Ireland ..................................................................................................... 457 PÉTER PROHÁSZKA Die römischen Goldmünzen der Spätkaiserzeit aus dem Barbaricum des Karpatenbeckens Von der Tetrarchie bis zum Ende der Herrschaft von Theodosius I. ................................................................................. 471 LÁSZLÓ RUPNIK New plumbata mamillata Find from Szentendre ..................................................................................................................... 491 GÁBOR SERLEGI The Waterlogged Century ...................................................................................................................................................... 501 KRISZTINA SZIRMAI – ANETT VEREBES – LÁSZLÓ KÖLTŐ – MIKLÓS KIS-VARGA Bronze Statuettes from Aquincum Material Analyses of Imported Bronze Statuettes from Aquincum .................................................................................. 515 MELINDA TORBÁGYI “Purse Finds” in the Late Roman Graves in Pannonia ........................................................................................................ 525 PÉTER VÁMOS Schlangengefäße in Aquincum ............................................................................................................................................... 537 LÓRÁNT VASS – SZILAMÉR PÉTER PÁNCZÉL To Play or not to Play? Roman Dice from Porolissum in the Wesselényi–Teleki Collection .................................................................................... 561 ISTVÁN VIDA Late 2nd Century Sarmatian Coin Hoards .............................................................................................................................. 573 ZSOLT VISY Archäologische Forschungen an der östlichen Grenze von Dacia superior ..................................................................... 587 PAULA ZSIDI Nicht alltägliches Lampenmodell-Negativ aus Aquincum .................................................................................................. 599 EX OFFICINA... Studia in honorem Dénes Gabler Győr 2009, 561–572 LÓRÁNT VASS – SZILAMÉR PÉTER PÁNCZÉL TO PLAY OR NOT TO PLAY? ROMAN DICE FROM POROLISSUM IN THE WESSELÉNYI–TELEKI COLLECTION1 With this paper we would like to honour a man who understands the true meaning of “homo ludens”, the need to play and to interact, typical for the human nature. Porolissum is one of the major military centres of Roman Dacia (Fig. 1) and one of the urban sites of the province which gains the status of a municipium under Emperor Septimius Severus. The social, economical, cultural and ethnical variety of the settlement provided the archaeologist with a large and varied scale of structures and artefacts, which reflects a rich material culture typical for the cosmopolite centres of the Roman Empire (Fig. 2).2 Since the discovery of the site in the 19th century, until the beginning of the systematic archaeological research in 1977, ongoing to the present day, a large number of finds from the site were scattered in different Museums, or private collections in Romania, or abroad.3 The Wesselényi– Teleki Collection is one of the richest collections of Roman artefacts from Porolissum and is now part of the collections at the County History and Art Museum from Zalău,4 as the result of a donation by Countess Anna Teleki from Jibou ( Sălaj County, Hun. Zsibó, Szilágy megye) in 1958. The donation consisted of 3726 archaeological objects of mainly iron, bronze, bone, glass, pottery and stone small finds.5 The importance of the collection is highlighted by M. Roska’s assertion in 1944, that the collection would be an important acquisition for a future local museum.6 Landowners of large territories in the villages of Jac and Moigrad (Sălaj County), the members of the Wesselényi and Teleki families started collecting Roman finds from Porolissum, based upon the material and artefact categories fashionable at that time. Due to this fact, the relation between the artefact and the find spots were lost. Although the archaeological data is scattered, we were prompted to carry out in depth analysis on this collection as it consists of the largest concentration of Roman bone dice and a unique glass die from the whole province of Dacia.7 We consider, as mostly defined,8 a die to be a small (polyhedral) object, in most cases cubic, used for generating random numbers, or other symbols, which makes it a suitable device for gambling and playing social games. 1 We would like to express our gratitude to Nickola Lyons for the corrections suggested to this paper. 2 For a short briefing about Porolissum, see: BĂRBULESCU 2005, 37. 3 About the state of research until 1977, see: GUDEA 1989, 33-50. 4 Muzeul Judeţean de Istorie şi Artă – Zalău, Romania. 5 LUCĂCEL 1977, 26; GUDEA 1989, 23. WAGNER 1980, 700. 7 In the monographic analysis of the discoveries until 1977 only one die (GUDEA 1989, 830, Nr. 2) was published. 8 See for example s. v. dice in Encyclopedia Britannica or Grand Dictionnaire Encyclopédique Larousse. 6 L. VASS – SZ. P. PÁNCZÉL Fig. 1 Roman Dacia (after N. Gudea, digitalised and modified by C. Găzdac) The different types of board games were one of the main ways of relaxing and spending spare time in the Roman era. The huge popularity of these games is attested by the richness of ancient written sources and the rich archaeological evidence. Dice, counters or gaming boards are recovered from almost every Roman settlement.9 Although the board games and dicing had Greek origins, their increasing importance during the Roman era, in the Greek discourse made them to appear a typical form of Roman behaviour.10 In spite of the huge popularity of gambling in Roman times, hardly any Roman written source do not condemn it. Alea according to the ancient sources, as N. Purcell11 has 9 Usually the different elements of board games are published in separate studies based on the material they are made of, i. e. bone dice from Pannonia (BÍRÓ 1994, 108–110, Nr. 639–668), Colchester (CRUMMY 1995, 96–97, Nr. 2500– 2506), Augst (DESCHLER-ERB 1998, 78–79, Nr. 872–890), Avanches (SCHENK 2008, 228, Nr. 1022–1038), Vallée d’Hérault (FEUGÈRE–PRÈVOT 2008, 247; 251; 256, Nr. 46– 48); bone counters from Pannonia (BÍRÓ 1994, 110–119, Nr. 679–844), Colchester (CRUMMY 1995, 91–92, 562 Nr. 2238– 2282), Avanches (SCHENK 2008, 209–227, Nr. 647–1021), Vallée d’Hérault (FEUGÈRE–PRÈVOT 2008, 246–248; 250– 252; Nr. 49–63); gaming boards from Mainz, Trier and Vindonissa (HOLLIGER–HOLLIGER 1984, Abb. 11, Abb. 14, Abb. 10). 10 They express even a kind of despise and social-ethnical judgment of the Romans, see: PURCELL 1995, 8. 11 PURCELL 1995. TO PLAY OR NOT TO PLAY? Fig. 2 Archaeological sketch of Porolissum (after N. Gudea, digitalised and modified by C. Găzdac) pointed out, had a very strong social connotation, which contributed to a large extent to its negative perception. In many Roman written sources the game of alea is associated with the poor urban plebs, who are wasting time by dicing in taverns, hoping to have a sudden access of cash. While gambling in the case of the plebs is considered an immoral, useless, time-wasting and despised activity, the obsession of gambling in the case of Roman emperors like Augustus, Claudius,12 Caligula, Nero, Domitianus, or Commodus is regarded as the worst vice and an indicator of their immoral character.13 12 According to Suetonius, Emperor Claudius was so skilled in dicing and so obsessed with gambling that he tried to establish scientific rules of the profane and immoral game of alea, writing even a book about how to play it well (SUETONIUS, Claudius, 33). 13 PURCELL 1995, 6–17. 563 L. VASS – SZ. P. PÁNCZÉL The games involving dice passed through a serious change during the Roman era. In the early period, dicing was practised with unprocessed animal knucklebones (astragalus, talus), which due to their asymmetric shape (having both concave and convex sides) were excellent for indicating different values without marking them on the surface.14 Later, these unprocessed knucklebones were replaced with more, or less, cubical shaped, worked bone dice with six sides. Having six equal smooth sides on which the pips were marked usually by an incised dot and circle motif in such a way that two facing sides could give the sum of seven. This type of die is in fact the developed version of the knucklebone die, being emphasized by the same term in Latin used for both types: talus, talii, alea, tesserae. Usually three dice were used at the same time, thrown together with the help of a dice box (pyrgus, turricula, fritillus) that in some cases imitated a tower15 with steps inside so that the chance of cheating could be reduced to minimum. There were predefined combinations (i. e. if all thrown dice show one, it was called canis, while the most valuable throw called Venus, when all the dice show different values), and the winner was who threw the hardest and rarest combination.16 The combination of random principle, personal skill, competitive manner and the chance of quick access to considerable cash made dicing a general threat to the Roman morality, so it was forbidden in the time of the Late Roman Republic;17 playing was only allowed at the big festivities like Saturnalia.18 Later dice were also employed in different board games, and in these cases, dice were showing the number of movements one was allowed to make on a board. Dice, counters and gaming board formed the basic elements of these games; the luck represented by the dice was combined with the player’s special skills. The dice from the province of Dacia show no particularities compared to the ones from the other parts of the Empire. They are made usually of bone, have usually a regular or slightly irregular cubic shape on which the pips are dots and circles made by a fixed chisel compass or drilled by an instrument. Therefore we cannot establish an adequate typology; only the size of the dice, the dimension of pips and some technical marks vary. Due to the state of research and publications just a moderate number (27) of Roman dice are known to provenance from Dacia (Fig. 3). The published pieces are usually listed without any further comments, and their presence reflects much more the urge to publish small finds, rather than preferences for their usage in the Roman time. Nevertheless we made an attempt to collect all the published dice in order to investigate whether they could provide information about their acceptance. From the main urban centres of the province: Apulum (Alba Iulia, Hun. Gyulafehérvár),19 14 BÍRÓ 1994, 61. The most interesting is kept in the Landesmuseum in Bonn. The military tower shaped box has an inscription saying: PICTOS VICTOS HOSTIS DELETA LVDITE SECVRI (HORN 1982). This inscription as well as other similar inscriptions found on gaming boards suggests, according to Purcell, the military character of gambling, the game being in this mean a metaphor for the circumstances of a current war conflict of that time (PURCELL 1995, 25– 26). 16 For rules of dicing see: NÉMETH 2000, 23–27. 17 M. Bíró mentions that in the beginning dice were used in prophesying, so dicing was prohibited because it was 15 564 profanizing a religious act and not because of it's immoral character (BÍRÓ 1994, 61). 18 Dice were used mainly in a board game called ludus XII scriptorum, a game played on a board with sets of twelve horizontal markings (which is some cases were replaced by letters) divided by a circular motif. There is no written evidence for the use of dice in another very famous board game, the ludus latrunculorum. For detailed rules of the games see: AUSTIN 1934, 30–34; AUSTIN 1935, 76–82. 19 CIUGUDEAN 1997, 79–80, Nr. 493–496, 497 (same as NOVÁK 1944, 87, Nr. 21; COCIŞ–ALICU 1993, 122, Nr. 162; PAKI–COCIŞ 1993, 161, Nr. 29), 498. TO PLAY OR NOT TO PLAY? Apulum – 6 22% Porolissum – 11 41% Ulpia T. S. – 4 15% Cristeşti – 1 4% Potaissa – 2 7% Răcari – 1 4% Feldioara – 2 7% Fig. 3 The published Roman dice from Dacia Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa (Sarmizegetusa, Hun. Várhely)20 and Potaissa (Turda, Hun. Torda)21 a considerable number of dice are known, but they are also present in some military sites: Feldioara (Hun. Földvár)22 and Răcari23. From Porolissum, only three dice were known, one from the costumes office,24 one from the amphitheatre25 and one from the Wesselényi–Teleki Collection26. The lack of dice in rural settlements and villa sites, except Cristeşti (Hun. Maroskeresztúr),27 is not evidential of absence, considering that dice games, as well as board games had a huge popularity in the Roman era; it rather reflects the state of art in the field of research, than the urban character of dicing. Three of the dice from Apulum were part of grave inventories.28 They can show a strong connection between the deceased and his “lucky dice”, or can reflect a funerary practice where the dice might be a symbol for the changing luck in the life of man, but in both cases the link between man and dicing was probably very strong. As proof of a possible cultic role of dicing we can consider the one discovered in the Temple of Malagbel in Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa.29 If this dice was used for prophesising,30 or it was a simple votive object, or perhaps it was used for leisure activities in the sanctuary as well as the ones discovered in military barracks,31 in private32 or public buildings33 it is very difficult to say, but all the possible variants must be taken into account. Knowing that dice were also used in board games, the moderate number of dice compared to the much better represented counters is not surprising. It is obvious that for board games there are required less dice (usually three) than counters, so production was at differing scales. 20 ALICU–NEMEŞ 1982, 355, Nr. 86 (same as PAKI–COCIŞ 1993, 161, Nr. 30; ALICU ET ALII 1994, Nr. 847), 87 (same as COCIŞ–ALICU 1993, 122, Nr. 161), 88 (PAKI–COCIŞ 1993, 160, Nr. 28), 89. 21 BĂRBULESCU 1994, Fig. 25, Nr. 7; BAJUSZ 2005, 600, 30/g/2. ábra. 22 GUDEA 2008, 230, Nr. 6–7. 23 BONDOC–GUDEA 2009, 276, Nr. 1098. 24 GUDEA 1996, 273, Nr. 23(21). 25 VASS 2006, 648, Nr. 44. 26 GUDEA 1989, 830, Nr. 2. 27 PETICĂ–ZRINYI 2000, 127, nr. 42. CIUGUDEAN 1997, 79–80, Nr. 495–496, 498. 29 PAKI–COCIŞ 1993, 160, Nr. 28 (same as ALICU–NEMEŞ 1982, 355, Nr. 88) 30 See footnote 16. 31 GUDEA 2008, 230, Nr. 6–7; GUDEA 1996, 273, Nr. 23(21). 32 BAJUSZ 2005, 600, 30/g/2. ábra; ALICU–NEMEŞ 1982, 355, Nr. 87; PETICĂ–ZRINYI 2000, 127, Nr. 42; CIUGUDEAN 1997, 79, Nr. 493–494. 33 VASS 2006, 648, Nr. 44; ALICU–NEMEŞ 1982, 355, Nr. 87. 28 565 L. VASS – SZ. P. PÁNCZÉL The place of discovery of the dice from the Wesselényi–Teleki Collection, cannot offer any hints about their use, but the fact that we have a large number of published pottery34 and bone35 counters and a gaming board for ludus latrunculorum36 could indicate that they where used for board games as well, instead of just gambling. It should be underlined that the bone dice from Porolissum vary in scale (6–14 mm), finishing and colouring, which would suggest that they could have been used for different games, or that they were produced in different workshops. The fact that some of the pips are made with dots and double circle (Nr. 1, 3, 7) and some with simple circle (Nr. 2, 4–6) should rather indicate that they have been made by different artisans. The tools needed to cut the cubes from the thick diaphysis of the long bones from large animals, and to finish them with the rasp (traces of rasping are visible at Nr. 2) and the fixed chisel compass, would make it easy to establish a local workshop for the production of dice in Porolissum.37 The almost unique glass dice38 is probably the result of the creativity of a glassworker, or a jeweller. Maybe a glassworker in his attempt to innovate and extend the possible use of glass, cast a glass cube and after cooling drilled the pips, but some parallel linear surface scratches, still visible on the sides with three and four pips, and the dark blue colour of the glass would rather suggest that it was cut from a larger glass tessserae,39 or a jeweller made the dice by rasping, polishing and drilling. The difficulties and the time consuming production method were not efficient enough to start a mass production. The slight irregularities, the rarity of similar finds would also underline the experimental character of the production process. Until other similar artefacts are discovered the production centre for the object can not be located, but the strongly coloured good quality glass material being quite rare in Porolissum or the rest of the province,40 would rather suggest that the raw material was imported, but until archaeometrical analysis can be performed we can not say this with any certainty. The collection pieces from Porolissum, can only be dated to existence period of the site, from the beginning of the 2nd to the third quarter of the 3rd century. 34 GUDEA 1989, 510, Nr. 1–22; And just mentioning the presence: GUDEA ET ALII 1992, 145–146, 155; GUDEA–TAMBA 2003, 216; GUDEA–TAMBA 2001, fig. 75. 35 GUDEA 1989, 829–830; GUDEA 1996, 226–227, Nr. 1–16; VASS 2006, 648, 36–43; COCIŞ–ALICU 1993, 123, Nr. 171 (same as GUDEA 1989, 829, Nr. 2). 36 PAKI–COCIŞ 1993, 161, Nr. 33. 37 Some unfinished pieces and workshop debris (VASS 2006, 646, Nr. 1–4), and the large number of bone dice would also suggest the presence of local bone workshop(s), where 566 among other artifacts bone dice could have been produced. Thanks to Anna Barbara Follmann-Schulz from Bonn, Annelies Koster from Nijmegen and François van den Dries from Tilburg we have knowledge about the existence of two glass dice kept in Leiden but being originally from Egypt. 39 Strongly colored glass is frequently used for mosaic tesserae. 40 PÁNCZÉL–LÁZOK 2003, 184. 38 TO PLAY OR NOT TO PLAY? CATALOGUE 1. Die (Fig. 4) Zalău, MIAZ41 Inv. Nr. CC. 211/58, FAE 548. PD: Moigrad (Porolissum), Wesselényi–Teleki Collection. Unpublished. Broken in half along the section (the side with 1 pip is completely missing, the sides with 2, 3, 4 and 5 pips are damaged). H. 4 mm – L. 7 mm – W. 6 mm. Bone. Irregular cubic die, the pips of dot and double circle type are made with fixed chisel compass and organized asymmetrical. Hand carved, surface evened roughly, traces of possible grey colouring (to imitate metal) are visible. 2. Die (Fig. 5) Zalău, MIAZ Inv. Nr. CC. 211/58 FAE 26. PD: Moigrad (Porolissum), Wesselényi–Teleki Collection. Unpublished. Intact. H. 7 mm – L. 9 mm – W. 7 mm. Bone. Slightly irregular cubic die, the pips of dot and circle type are made with fixed chisel compass and organized almost symmetrical. Hand carved, surface nicely evened, on the sides with 3 and 2 pips traces of rasping are visible. 3. Die (Fig. 6) Zalău, MIAZ Inv. Nr. CC. 211/58. PD: Moigrad (Porolissum), Wesselényi–Teleki Collection. Unpublished. Broken in half diagonally (the sides with 1 and 2 pips are completely missing, the sides with 3 and 4 pips damaged). H. 8 mm – L. 10 mm – W. 10 mm. Bone. Irregular cubic die, the pips of dot and double circle type are made with fixed chisel compass and organized almost symmetrical. Hand carved, surface nicely evened, polished and completely dyed grey (to imitate metal). 4. Die (Fig. 7) Zalău, MIAZ Inv. Nr. CC. 211/58, FAE 547. PD: Moigrad (Porolissum), Wesselényi–Teleki Collection. GUDEA 1989, 830, Nr. 2. Intact. H. 7 mm – L. 11 mm – W. 10 mm. Bone. Irregular cubic die with slightly alveolar sides, the pips of dot and circle type are made with fixed chisel compass and organized almost symmetrical. Hand carved, surface roughly evened, traces of intensive use are visible. 41 Muzeul Judeţean de Istorie şi Artă – Zalău. 567 L. VASS – SZ. P. PÁNCZÉL 5. Die (Fig. 8) Zalău, MIAZ Inv. Nr. CC. 211/58, FAE 549. PD: Moigrad (Porolissum), Wesselényi–Teleki Collection. Unpublished. Intact. H. 9 mm – L. 11 mm – W. 10 mm. Bone. Regular cubic die with alveolar sides (possible imitation of knucklebone), the pips of dot and circle type are made with fixed chisel compass and organized symmetrical. Hand carved, surface nicely evened. 6. Die (Fig. 9) Zalău, MIAZ no Inv. Nr., FAE 549. PD: Moigrad (Porolissum), Wesselényi–Teleki Collection. Unpublished. Broken in half along the section (the side with 2 pips is completely missing, the sides with 1, 3, 4 and 6 pips are damaged). H. 8 mm – L. 14 mm – W. 11 mm. Bone. Irregular cubic die, the pips of dot and circle type are made with fixed chisel and organized symmetrical. Hand carved, surface nicely evened. 7. Die (Fig. 10) Zalău, MIAZ Inv. Nr. CC. 211/58, FAE 541. PD: Moigrad (Porolissum), Wesselényi–Teleki Collection. Unpublished. Intact. H. 12 mm – L. 14 mm – W. 12 mm. Bone. Regular cubic die with rounded corners, the pips of dot and double circle type are made with fixed chisel compass and organized almost symmetrical. Hand carved, surface nicely evened and completely dyed brown (to imitate metal or stone). 8. Die (Fig. 11–12) Zalău, MIAZ Inv. Nr. CC. 211/58, FAE 540. PD: Moigrad (Porolissum), Wesselényi–Teleki Collection. Unpublished. Intact. H. 7 mm – L. 7 mm – W. 7 mm. Blue (287)42 glass, coloured with cobalt.43 Regular cubic dice made by polishing or casting? The circular and elliptical pips are organized asymmetrical, and they where drilled in the cold glass. Good quality, strongly coloured glass with only light irrisation on the surface and polishing marks on the sides with 3 and 4 pips. 42 Colour code after the colour charts of PANTONE by Letraset (see RÜTTI 1991, 432). 43 We would like to express our gratitude to Prof. Corina 568 Ionescu from the Geology Department of the BabeşBolyai University for the macroscopic analysis of the artifact, and the identification of the colorant. TO PLAY OR NOT TO PLAY? Fig. 4 Fig. 6 Fig. 5 Fig. 7 Fig. 9 Fig. 8 Fig. 10 569 L. VASS – SZ. P. PÁNCZÉL Fig. 12 Fig. 11 BIBLIOGRAPHY ALICU ET ALII 1994 Alicu, D. – Cociş, S. – Ilieş, C. – Soroceanu, A.: Small Finds from Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa I. Biblioteca Musei Napocensis IX. Cluj–Napoca 1994. ALICU–NEMEŞ 1982 Alicu, D. – Nemeş, E.: Obiecte de os descoperite la Ulpia Traiana Sarmizegetusa. ActaMN XIX (1982), 345–366. AUSTIN 1934 Austin, R. G.: Roman Board Games I. Greece & Rome 4/10 (1934), 24–34. AUSTIN 1935 Austin, R. G.: Roman Board Games II. Greece & Rome 4/11 (1935), 76–82. BAJUSZ 2005 Bajusz I. (ed): Téglás István Jegyzetei. Régészeti Feljegyzések 1–2. Kolozsvár 2005. BĂRBULESCU 1994 Bărbulescu, M.: Potaissa. Studiu monographic. Turda 1994. BĂRBULESCU 2005 Bărbulescu, M. (ed): Atlas-dicţionar al Daciei Romane. Cluj–Napoca 2005. BÍRÓ 1994 T. Bíró, M.: The Bone Objects of the Roman Collection. Catalogi Musei Nationalis Hungarici Series Archaeologica II. Budapest, 1994. BONDOC–GUDEA 2009 Bondoc, D. – Gudea, N.: Castrul roman de la Răcari. Încercare de monografie. IEC XIV. Cluj–Napoca 2009. CIUGUDEAN 1997 Ciugudean, D.: Obiectele din os, corn şi fildeş de la Apulum. Bibliotheca Musei Apulensis V. Alba Iulia 1997. COCIŞ–ALICU 1993 Cociş, S. – Alicu, D.: Obiecte de os din Dacia Apulensis şi Dacia Porolissensis. ActaMP XVII (1993), 113–149. CRUMMY 1995 Crummy, N.: The Roman small finds from excavations in Colchester 1971-9. Colchester Archaeological Reports 2. Colchester 1995. DESCHLER-ERB 1998 Deschler-Erb, S.: Römische Beinartefakte aus Augusta Raurica. Forschungen in Augst 27/1–2. Augst 1998. FEUGÈRE–PRÈVOT 2008 Feugère, M. – Prèvot, Ph.: Les matières dures animales (os, bois de cerf et ivoire) dans la vallèe d’Hèrault: production et consommation. In: Bertrand, I (ed): Le travail du l’os, du bois de cerf et de la corne à l’èpoque romaine : un artisanat en marge? Actes de la table ronde instrumentum-Chauvigny (Vienne, F), 8–9 decembre 2005. Monographies Instrumentum 34. Montagnac 2008, 231–268. GUDEA 1989 Gudea, N.: Porolissum. Un complex daco-roman la marginea de nord a Imperiului roman I. ActaMP XIII (1989), 11–178. 570 TO PLAY OR NOT TO PLAY? GUDEA 1996 Gudea, N.: Porolissum. Un complex daco-roman la marginea de nord a Imperiului Roman. II. Vama romană. Monografie arheologică. Cluj–Napoca 1996. GUDEA 2008 Gudea, N.: Castrul roman de la Feldioara. Încercare de monografie arheologică. IEC XI. Cluj–Napoca 2008. GUDEA ET ALII 1992 Gudea, N. – Chirilă, E. – Matei, Al. – Bajusz, I. – Tamba, D.: Raport preliminar privind săpăturile arheologice şi lucrările de conservare şi restaurare executate la Porolissum în anii 1988-1991. ActaMP XVI (1992), 143–185. GUDEA–TAMBA 2001 Gudea, N. – Tamba, D.: Porolissum. Un complex daco-roman la marginea de nord a Imperiului Roman. III. Despre templul zeului Iupiter Dolichenus din municipium Septimium. Zalău, 2001. GUDEA–TAMBA 2003 Gudea, N. – Tamba, D.: Raport preliminar în legătură cu cercetările arheologice şi de teren, lucrările de conservare şi restaurare executate la Porolissum între anii 1994-2002. Vicus-ul roman de pe părţile de nord-est ale dealului Pomet. Clădirea LM.1S. ActaMP XXV (2003), 212–216. HALBERTSMA 2006 Halbertsma, R.: Schitterend glas uit Egypte, Griekenland en Rome. Zwolle–Leiden 2006. HOLLIGER–HOLLIGER 1984 Holliger, C. – Holliger, Cl.: Römische Spielsteine und Brettspiele. Gesellschaft Pro Vindonissa Jahresbericht 1983 [1984], 5–25. HORN 1982 Horn, H. G.: Si per me misit, nil nisi vota feret: Ein römischer Spielturm aus Froitzheim. BJ 189 (1989), 139–160. LUCĂCEL 1977 Lucăcel, V.: Douăzecişicinci de ani de activitate a Muzeului de Istorie şi Artă din Zalău. ActaMP I (1977), 23–35. NÉMETH 2000 Németh Gy.: Ókori gyermekjátékok. Budapest 2000. NOVÁK 1944 Novák J.: Gyulafehérvári római leletek. Közlemények az Erdélyi Múzeum Érem és Régiségtárából IV/1–2 (1944), 81–87. PAKI–COCIŞ 1993 Paki, A. – Cociş, S.: Dacia Ludens. Ephemeris Napocensis III (1993), 149–161. PÁNCZÉL–LÁZOK 2003 Pánczél Sz. P. – Lázok K.: A római Dácia üvegművessége. In: Bajusz I. (ed): Mindennapi élet a római Dáciában. Kolozsvár 2003, 153–309. PETICĂ–ZRINYI 2000 Petică, M. – Zrinyi, A.: Obiecte de os în colecţiile Muzeului Judeţean Mureş. Marisia XXVI (2000), 123–135. PURCELL 1995 Purcell, N.: Literate Games: Roman Urban Society and the Game of Alea. Past & Present 147 (1995), 3–37. RÜTTI 1991 Rütti, B.: Die römische Gläser aus Augst und Kaiseraugst. Forschungen in Augst 13/1-2. 1991. SCHENK 2008 Schenk, A.: Regard sur la tabletterie antique. Les objets en os, bois de cerf et ivoire du Musée Romain d'Avanches. Avanches 2008. VASS 2006 Vass, L.: Unpublished Roman bone artefacts from the amphitheatre of Porolissum. In: Gaiu, C. – Găzdac, C. (ed.): Fontes Historiae. Studia in honorem Demetrii Protase. Bistriţa 2006, 641–656. WAGNER 1980 Wagner, E.: Preocupări de arheologie în judeţul Sălaj oglindite în documente din anii 1870-1950. ActaMP IV (1980), 665–703. Lóránt Vass Babeş-Bolyai University Cluj-Napoca Str. Mihail Kogălnicenau, nr. 3 v_lorant@yahoo.com Szilamér Péter Pánczél Babeş-Bolyai University Cluj-Napoca Str. Mihail Kogălnicenau, nr. 3 pszilamer@yahoo.com 571 Játszani vagy nem játszani? Római dobókockák Porolissumból a Wesselényi–Teleki gyűjteményből Jelen tanulmányban a dáciai Porolissumból a zsibói Wesselényi–Teleki gyűjteménybe került római leletek közül hét csont (Kat. 1–7) és egy üveg (Kat. 8) dobókocka kerül bemutatásra. A leközölt dáciai leletek ismeretében az általunk bemutatott együttes számbelileg, a technikai szempontokat és az anyagválasztást illetően is kiemelkedik a tartomány többi lelőhelyének leletanyagához viszonyítva. A bemutatott II–III. századra datált anyag, illetve a lelőhelyről ismert félkész termékek alapján indokolt azt feltételeznünk, hogy Porolissumban legalább egy csontműves műhely működhetett, ahol dobókockákat is gyártottak, de az üvegkocka eredete sajnos nem tisztázott. Vass Lóránt – Pánczél Szilamér Péter